Why Haven't Airbus A-320s Been Grounded?

The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently
nobody has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD
yet. I expect that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to
ground the entire Airbus fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct
that they will not take that step unless somebody is killed in one of
these incidents.

That's dumb.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently
nobody has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD
yet. I expect that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to
ground the entire Airbus fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct
that they will not take that step unless somebody is killed in one of
these incidents.

That's dumb.

They call it an "airworthiness directive" for a reason. If they have no fix,
they can't "direct" you to do anything to fix the problem. So far the agencies
around the world such as the FAA seems to feel that this problem is unlikely to
cause anything more than some press excitement and purchase of replacement parts
and provide a little exercise for the emergency people.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

In article QTE1f.653$RG1.238@trndny08,
George Patterson wrote:

They call it an "airworthiness directive" for a reason. If they have no fix,
they can't "direct" you to do anything to fix the problem.

otoh - they can ground the airplane (I'm saying they should).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

George Patterson wrote:



They call it an "airworthiness directive" for a reason. If they have no
fix, they can't "direct" you to do anything to fix the problem.

Sure they can. Just look at the T34.

Jay,

In every instance that I know of where the nosewheel malfunctioned on
the Airbus, the problem was found to be HOW maintenance was performed on
the aircraft. The Airbus does NOT have a problem, some of the
technicians doing the maintenance on the Airbus do. This is why no AD
has been issued. Lots of contract maintenance is being performed these
days (overseas and domestically)...I'll let you draw your own conclusion
whether it's a good "thing" or not. We live in a "Walmart" world and
unfortunately it has spilled over to the airlines.

BJ
Airbus Captain

Jay Honeck wrote:

The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently
nobody has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD
yet. I expect that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to
ground the entire Airbus fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct
that they will not take that step unless somebody is killed in one of
these incidents.


That's dumb.

In article ,
"B. Jensen" wrote:

Jay,

In every instance that I know of where the nosewheel malfunctioned on
the Airbus, the problem was found to be HOW maintenance was performed on
the aircraft. The Airbus does NOT have a problem, some of the
technicians doing the maintenance on the Airbus do. This is why no AD
has been issued.

There are no examples of maintenance-related ADs?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In every instance that I know of where the nosewheel malfunctioned on the
Airbus, the problem was found to be HOW maintenance was performed on the
aircraft. The Airbus does NOT have a problem, some of the technicians
doing the maintenance on the Airbus do.

Thanks, BJ, for providing your unique perspective to the issue.

Maintenance issue or not, I'm still amazed that this can happen seven times
(supposedly; I have no way to verify that number) and the FAA has done
nothing tangible. That's just so, well, un-FAA-like.

Remember, this is the same gang that has issued three ADs on the Lycoming
O-540 in just the last 12 months. Yet they do *nothing* when an airliner
has a nosegear that doesn't deploy?

Something smells funny. Clearly the FAA is treading lightly for a reason.

My guess is that they don't want to be seen as a reason for an airline
failure. I suspect that, were the Airbuses to be grounded tomorrow, more
airlines would be in Chapter 11, given their precarious financial condition.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Something smells funny.

Well, there's a different thing I think smells funny. In this group,
everybody seems to agree that journalists are idiots, because they write
about things they have no clue of. Personally, I know a lot about
gliders. I know quite a bit about light singles. But I have no clue of
the issues involved in driving an airliner. More precisely, I know
exactly one thing about driving an airliner: It's completely different
from driving a spam can. You can't just scale up. So I won't do the same
thing as the journalists and write about things I have no clue of. But
maybe, you know more than me.

Stefan

Something smells funny.

Well, there's a different thing I think smells funny. In this group,
everybody seems to agree that journalists are idiots, because they write
about things they have no clue of. Personally, I know a lot about
gliders. I know quite a bit about light singles. But I have no clue of
the issues involved in driving an airliner. More precisely, I know
exactly one thing about driving an airliner: It's completely different
from driving a spam can. You can't just scale up. So I won't do the same
thing as the journalists and write about things I have no clue of. But
maybe, you know more than me.

The main difference (from the FAA's standpoint) is that every time an
airliner takes off, hundreds of lives are at stake. On the other hand,
when *you* take off in your spam can, you're no real threat to anyone
but yourself and (at most) a few passengers.

Why or how this translates into a more lenient attitude toward airline
aircraft maintenance is the question. As always, it's probably a
"follow the money" thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
Why or how this translates into a more lenient attitude toward airline
aircraft maintenance is the question. As always, it's probably a
"follow the money" thing.

There are several routes that a manufacturer can take to correct
difficiencies. To my way of thinking, Lycoming was the impetus behind the
O-540 ADs. They didn't want the lawsuits that would inevitably be filed
against them by week-end single-engine pilots' estates because the engines
failed after the pilots neglected an 'optional' service bulletin. So they
'suggested' that the FAA issue an AD, to my way of thinking.

The FAA isn't afraid to tick off the French. Witness the emergency ADs after
the Roselawn ATR-72 crash. The French DGAC protested loudly that the ADs
weren't neccessary, but every US certificated ATR has the big de-ice boots
now along with a prohibition against using the autopilot in severe icing
conditions.

The A-320 is a good product but not perfect. After 20 years there are still
some bugs to work, as there are in any complex piece of machinery. In my
manual, there are close to 20 operations bulletins. There are service
bulletins issued to flightcrews and to maintenance. The nosewheel problem
and the lack of tail strike protection ($1.5Million or more per strike not
including loss of revenue) perplex me, but then again, the A-320 won't have
exploding gas tanks because the electric pump wiring is outside the tank. A
canted nosewheel is no more dangerous than a gear that fails to extend. The
B-727 has been filmed numerous times landing without one of the gears being
extended. I'm not aware of any ADs for that problem.

Expanding perceptions,
D.